Pellerin: Stop talking about affordable housing and help create some

Housing is being built, but many people simply can't afford what's on offer.Julie Oliver / Postmedia

The fact that many of us live in abodes that cost us more than we can afford doesn’t mean we’re stupid or unable to budget. It’s because we have to buy, or rent, something that’s actually available on the market.

The news this week that Trinity Development Group would invest $7.5 million in future affordable housing near its 900 Albert St. project was both good and bad. It’s gratifying to see a builder do the right thing even though it is under no legal obligation to do so, but it’s really too bad not to have those units built right there, right now.

I’ve heard every federal party leader and candidate discuss the urgent problem of affordable housing during this campaign. If discussions built things, maybe we’d get somewhere.

“Affordable” housing, by the way, is a dwelling that does not cost you more than 30 per cent of your income. It is different from social housing. And it’s not just apartments.

In his fascinating series on local housing costs earlier this year, Citizen columnist Randall Denley noted that according to the Royal Bank of Canada, “buying the average single family home takes 38.6 per cent of median family income.” I hope your mental image just shifted.

The fact that many of us live in abodes that cost us more than they should doesn’t mean we’re stupid or unable to budget. It’s because we have to buy, or rent, something that’s actually available on the market. And that is where our problem is.

As Somerset Coun. Catherine McKenney explained to me, in the last 10 years we’ve lost seven private-market affordable units for every new one built in Ottawa.

Everyone wants to build more affordable and social housing units. Just not now. Later.

In a 2018 report about the Ottawa market, ACORN Canada said that “since 1999, a total of 1,760 affordable rental units have been completed. Compared with 8,000 market rental units completed in the same time period, and 87,456 ownership units, it is clear that low and moderate income renters are at a disadvantage.”

When the offer shrinks, people with modest means have very few choices. Developers such as Trinity could help by including a certain percentage of units built as more affordable (smaller rooms, less luxurious finishes). Imagine if suddenly there were 300 more such units available at 900 Albert, new but modest apartments in a prime location near transit, for people whose household income is in the $40,000 to $60,000 range.

The Liberals and Conservatives have proposals to make borrowing easier for first-time home buyers, tax credits and loans for home retrofits. The NDP wants to give rent subsidies to the poor while the Greens intend to legislate housing as a fundamental human right. Everyone wants to build more affordable and social housing units. Just not now. Later.

We need these units now, and the proper tool is the ability to mandate that every new residential development include a minimum number of affordable units. That’s something provinces can do. Still, federal politicians also have a few tools at their disposal.

I’m no real-estate expert, but you don’t need to be one to understand why private market builders aren’t too keen on building affordable units. They don’t think there’s enough return on renting cheaper apartments or selling inexpensive homes. So instead of promising longer mortgage amortization periods and sundry subsidies to individuals buyers, why can’t federal parties pledge to give tax credits to developers who include a minimum of, say, 20 per cent of affordable units in their developments? And give a similar advantage to builders of family homes in the outer suburbs for offering smaller, more affordable houses that cost no more than 30 per cent of the median income in a given area?

What if, instead of encouraging young families to go into more debt than they really should to buy a home that’s bigger than they really need, we made it easier for them to buy or rent something they can actually afford?

In the Citizen this week, Ottawa Centre NDP candidate Emilie Taman said “tackling the housing crisis in Ottawa cannot be put off any longer.” I agree. We know what the problem is. If we’re going to devote billions of federal dollars to this problem, let’s put it where it can actually build things.

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.